Various aviation projects from South Africa

Black Mamba
Nose strakes were part of the upgrade but fitted to a standard F1 nose.

I was trying to locate the post by the engineer who said the "nose was similar to the Cheetah C".

He actually had something to do with the cockpit layout, which started out projected with as much compatibility with the Cheetah C as possible.
With this in mind, it stands to reason that the avionics and radar were the same, and one would therefore think the radome from the Cheetah C would follow suit.
The F1's Cyrano radar was old in comparison to the Elta in the Cheetah C.
 
Black Mamba
Nose strakes were part of the upgrade but fitted to a standard F1 nose.

I was trying to locate the post by the engineer who said the "nose was similar to the Cheetah C".

He actually had something to do with the cockpit layout, which started out projected with as much compatibility with the Cheetah C as possible.
With this in mind, it stands to reason that the avionics and radar were the same, and one would therefore think the radome from the Cheetah C would follow suit.
The F1's Cyrano radar was old in comparison to the Elta in the Cheetah C.
I have also forgotten which thread of the SAAF forum he posted in, but I did save his comments at one point:

"The intention was to fit the same radar and avionics to Cheetah C and F1. This probably meant fitting the Cheetah C radome (or something similar) to the F1, but I don't know how far the mechanical design progressed - when I was involved it was at the advanced concept stage, with provisional equipment fits. The Cheetah C full nose section (i.e. everything ahead of cockpit) was not required - the idea was to fit almost all avionics in one huge avionic bay behind the F1 cockpit."

Focus specifically on the last section. They could fit everything required into the avionics bay of the F1. Now if we add a plug in order to fit the LERX into the equation the space behind the cockpit grows quite nicely although some fuel would no doubt have occupied some space.

If a Cheetah C style of radome is needed I have no idea, but if only the radar dish is required I see no reason for a new radome design especially if the aerodynamic flow will change too compared to a known entity (Standard nose) and modified known entity (strakes fitted as per LERX studies). The AZ will also not suffer aerodynamically if we return to the C nose mouldline.

I attach some images below of F1CZ 210 at CSIR Pretoria. CSIR in the late 80's early 90's was doing a huge amount of work around composites. 210 on display there shows a locally manufactured composite nose cone.

I thus suspect if it had come to an F1 upgrade they would simply have manufactured a new radome with the mould lines of the old but using modern materials to a achieve a new transparency level no doubt required of the new radar. Conjecture on my part sure, but I doubt it would be a copy & paste exercise from the Cheetah C. Using similar materials & construction is no doubt an option.
 

Attachments

  • CSIR 210 (2).jpg
    CSIR 210 (2).jpg
    142.6 KB · Views: 308
  • CSIR 210.jpg
    CSIR 210.jpg
    125 KB · Views: 211
Thanks for saving that post.
I was relying on memory of the content of a post from years ago.

That makes sense. Interesting pics.

I'm thinking that with that fuselage plug aft of the cockpit, it actually provides a perfect location for an in flight refuelling probe too, just as was fitted in the Cheetah C.
I had wondered how they were going to retain the nose probe capability on the F1A, and fit one to the C, but I wasn't aware of the fuselage plug being looked at.
 
Last edited:
I'm thinking that with that fuselage plug aft of the cockpit, it actually provides a perfect location for an in flight refuelling probe too, just as was fitted in the Cheetah C.
I had wondered how they were going to retain the nose probe capability on the F1A, and fit one to the C, but I wasn't aware of the fuselage plug being looked at.
I'm also leaning to a Che C style probe being used. Mostly because by the time the F1 upgrade would have started being implemented that system was already well proven so less risk involved. That & I suspect adding the Che C system will be easier than routing a similar to F1A plumbing under the cockpit in converted F1C's that were never designed for it unlike later variants. But I'm open to being corrected there!

If however they didn't go the LERX + fuselage plug way and simply went avionics alone a Fixed probe F1AZ style & location (like later F1 variants too) is the (only) way to go I guess...
 
Thinking of the fuselage plug, I can now begin to see the reason for the Atar Plus, as well as the SMR95 programme, even disregarding the Carver.
For example, the Cheetah C, with additional add ons, such as fuselage plug, refuelling probe, and avionics, beefed up undercarriage etc, weighs about 1000kg more in empty configuration than a Mirage IIIE.

They had to get extra thrust to maintain an acceptable level of twr with the additional weight.

The LERX on the lengthened F1 I guess would fulfill a multiple of tasks, such as maintaining CG, adding wing/lift area for the extra weight and length, with added benefits of increasing the manoeuvrability envelope.
Much like the canards did on the Cheetah.

Interesting.
 
The avionic system which eventually went into the Cheetah C was originally defined as an upgrade for Mirage F1 in 1987 - I was part of the team that worked for 5 months on the avionics definition. One of the problems with this was that we still needed all the F1's for the border war, releasing them for a retrofit would be difficult.

Late in 1987 or early 1988 an unsolicited proposal was received for the supply of additional Mirage III airframes (allegedly ex-Israli Kfirs) complete with the avionics we had defined for the F1s - the proposed cost per aircraft of these airframes plus avionics (without engines) was only slightly more than Denel Aviation had proposed per aircraft for the F1 avionics upgrade on its own. It obviously made sense to do this (additional aircraft instead of updating the F1s, just about the same price) so the Cheetah C contract extension was signed. For the first year or two, the avionics design was carefully kept compatible with Cheetah C airframes and Mirage F1, so the F1s would eventually get their upgrade once the Cheetah C's were in service, but once peace broke out and the border war stopped, the Mirage F1 upgrade option was dropped.

In terms of airframe modifications to make place for the avionics, the only idea I remember from 1987 was to add a hump behind the cockpit (similar to the Israeli A4 hump) but eventually it was decided that if the fuel tank behind the cockpit on the F1CZ was removed, the avionics would fit in an avionics bay behind the cockpit, with only radar in the nose (similar to the F1CZ fit). I think the autopilot, which was HUGE, was also going to be dumped. I was not involved once the Cheetah C development work started in 1988 / 1989, so I don't know what weird ideas those guys came up with.

I thought that modifying the ventral fins for chaff and flare had been implemented - I remember that the original composite design had problems with delamination at high altitude (low temperatures, maybe) so they changed to an all-metal design.

So that's the ancient history. Project Nekwar (originally at ATE) and the SMR-95 re-engining came later.

Oh, and there was also Project Pastor (Denel Aviation, Teklogic / ADS, and Kentron, I think), which started in 1986 or so by reverse-engineering Cheetah D avionic functionality, then moved on to proposing an avionic fit which we wanted to fly in a Mirage F1. But it never went that far - the Avionics department at Denel Aviation was shut down / moved to Kentron in early 2001, with most of the Rooivalk team moving to ATE.
The above is from the SAAF forum.
The person moved on to other projects, so didn't know the end result of any further development wrt aerodynamic modifications.
Interesting that a dorsal hump was looked at initially, "ala the A4".
It stands to reason that a fuselage plug was probably the end result, as it would have allowed far greater scope for avionics and fuel.
This was the route taken by Cheetah C too, even with that windtunnel model posted earlier in this thread of the Cheetah C with bulged spine.
 
Thanks for compiling his comments @kaiserbill.

The A4-esque hump has always been interesting to me too. Apparently the flare fit at Station 0 (between fuselage & inner Station 1 pylons) really messed with the aircraft's area ruling - hence the move to fit them in the ventral fins. Adding a hump would have had an even more detrimental effect I would imagine! Thus I agree the result seems to be a plug as we see on the Cheetah C given added benefits like fuel alongside besides a reduced aero impact.

Interesting comment there about reverse engineering the Cheetah D avionic fit or derivative thereof for the F1. It must have been aimed at the F1AZ's as the Cheetah D/E fit was decidedly aimed at the strike role.
 
From what I can gather, the F1C and F1A were to be brought up to a common standard regarding avionics.
So this implies a common standard regarding radome or multi-mode radar ala the Cheetah C.
I personally think that there would have been no distinction between the Upgraded F1 as there was between the the F1CZ and AZ.
There were originally 48 F1's purchased in C and A models, but by this time (late 80"s) the fleet size was closer to 40.
Very similar numbers to the 38 Cheetah C fleet.
So a common standard was logical.

I wonder whether the talk of Cheetah D avionic functionality compatibility had more to do with interface stuff for launching certain weapons in the strike role... Such as ALCM such as MUPSOW?

I've only ever seen the MUPSOW carried by the 2 seater Cheetah D in testing.

Edit: I think I misunderstood your post.
I think the Cheetah D avionics compatibility project on the F1 was earlier.
 
Last edited:
I'm just reposting this image below from sa_bushwar from earlier in the thread.
He stated he took it at DEXSA 2000.

It's interesting and relevant to this discussion, as it shows a windtunnel model of a Cheetah C type.

It's an interesting model, as this one though has a bulged spine, but no fuselage lengthening plug behind the cockpit. This can easily be seen by the air intake and cockpit positions relative to each other... and where the refuelling probe on the Cheetah C is.

I have always assumed this was an early Cheetah C configuration tested, before the additional fuselage plug was settled upon.
If the same fuselage plug route was followed on the Mirage F1, then the LERX addition makes perfect sense.
 

Attachments

  • scan0029a Cheetah C wind tonnel model.jpg
    scan0029a Cheetah C wind tonnel model.jpg
    409 KB · Views: 194
The 1986 timeline is what caught my attention. The Cheetah C Tunny project only ran from 1988 (Cheetah E also started entering service at that time although the E is essentially a single seat D in terms of avionics) MUPSOW only started around 1991. Assuming the author had the date right to me it indicates a very strike oriented upgrade investigation for the F1's. How much of this bled into the Che C's eventual and later investigations into an F1 avionic fit is anyone's guess.
 
Aaah...1986.
Before the Cheetah C.
Good catch.

It looks to me then that there was ongoing work on feeding Cheetah systems into an F1 upgrade.
And that when the Cheetah C came about, that aircrafts systems, which were actually advanced and in the front tier at the time (late 80's) probably started superseding previous programmes.
After all, an Upgraded Mirage F1 with Cheetah C systems would fulfill the strike and fighter roles in one platform.

Another point the engineer over at the SAAF forum intimated was that the F1A laser range finder would likely have been dumped, along with the retractable probe, as it would have interfered with the larger multi mode radar. And that the radar on the Cheetah C was able to make that laser redundant.
 
Last edited:
I agree, it was almost certain that avionics upgrade studies for the F1 were a continual thing and the Cheetah C fit was arguably the best South Africa could obtain & develop at the time. It is thus logical that an F1 upgrade would use that fit as a starting point with added development incorporated naturally. I also agree wouldn't make sense to upgrade the 13 odd remaining F1CZs to one standard & the 28 odd F1AZ's to another. Most engineers involved comment along the same lines.

I wonder how the Project Nekwar avionics upgrade ties into all this, although being completed much later in 1994/1995 time period? A watered down version focusing on the EW and improved strike suite for the AZs still in service after it was clear a significant F1 rebuild was no longer possible? The Spanish F1M upgrade is based off it so it clearly wasn't a solely strike package.

Side note - There is even talk that the 5 remaining Buccaneers were also being considered for upgrade around the Cheetah C EL/M-2032 radar - obviously optimised for the strike role. The radar clearly had good strike potential...

We have already discussed refueling for the F1 but the SAAF clearly put high priority on it. All the Cheetah's had it and it was demanded from the Gripen & Hawk we bought later too. It is a great force multiplier that allowes the SAAF to strike over long ranges with smaller fighters. That said, it wasn't utilised extensively in the border war, if at all. Only considered for some very long range Buccaneer strikes. So any F1 upgrade would alnost certainly have incorporated it - likely in the Che C style as we concluded earlier.

Note: Those F1 numbers remaining are off the top of my head so put a error tolerance on them.
 
Black_Mamba
I think those F1 numbers look about right.
Interesting comment about a Buccaneer avionics upgrade.
The primary avionics were ripe for that.

Even apart from the points you mention, the fact that the SAAF had inducted the Boeing 707 in the refuelling (and ELINT) role.. and indeed were in the market for additional 707's, definitely is also a pointer for an air-to-air refuelling capability for all the F1's.
 
In light of the proposed Mirage F1 upgrade discussion, Sa_bushwar posted this pic in the thread a few years ago, taken by him around the year 2000.
It's a windtunnel model of an F1, with what appears to be either modifications or test apparatus built into the wing leading edge and intake nacelles.

Anybody have any opinions on what this is about?
 

Attachments

  • scan0028a F1 windtonnel.jpg
    scan0028a F1 windtonnel.jpg
    115.8 KB · Views: 171
Last edited:
I do know South Africa did a whole lot of in-house windtunnel testing on the Mirage F1, particularly on stores separation for various indigenous weapon systems.
So this was my first guess..
 
For interest sake I attach a picture of the current CSIR wind tunnel model for the F1. Both C and A noses are shown as well as different tunnel intakes. Based on the rear eppenage detail I think this is the model displayed behind the humped Cheetah concept?

Also of interest is the V3P (SA designation for R73) missile rails below the model. The belly tank is an CSIR supersonic tank concept aimed at the US Aggressor F1 users but they had no interest in funding its development (The standard F1 tank is not cleared for supersonic flight and the aircraft fish-tails quite badly at close to or at supersonic speeds with it on the centreline). Not sure what is the weapon attached on Station 2? Looks almost like an R60? On the wingtip is what looks to be a EW pod. I think somewhere on this forum was a broshure for one that looked very similar?

The LERX concept model that I know of is a water tunnel model (water tunnels allow tests at very high Reynolds numbers, but at a low fluid velocity) which was significantly smaller than this one. No idea if that investigation progressed to larger scale models.
 

Attachments

  • CSIR F1 tunnel model.jpeg
    CSIR F1 tunnel model.jpeg
    281 KB · Views: 158
On the subject of wind tunnel models, I was perusing the CSIR wind tunnels website.
In plain view on one picture, to the left, was what we now know is the Carver windtunnel model, as posted recently in the Carver thread, and the Impala Extended Range Wing.
Just goes to show...it was hiding in open view on an online open source photo..
Note the turboprop trainer model near the photo centre. (The Atlas ACE 2 with larger engine? Just me conjecturing..)
Also posted from the same source, for clarity, is a much clearer pic of the Cheetah C windtunnel model with wing tip rails, which was discussed earlier in the thread.
 

Attachments

  • Medium speed wind tunnel 2.jpg
    Medium speed wind tunnel 2.jpg
    150.7 KB · Views: 125
  • WindTunnel_02.jpg
    WindTunnel_02.jpg
    808.6 KB · Views: 174
Last edited:
Sounds like some hopeful marketing ploy
This marketing ploy is in response to recent Ukrainian and Saudi attempts to intercept inexpensive drones by using the latest and most expensive supersonic, manned fighter jets. This cost disparity makes these tactics un-economical, but other nations are currently struggling to develop cheap drone interceptors.
In a war of attrition (e.g. current Russian invasion of Ukraine) the cost difference will soon bankrupt the intercepting nation.
 
Hi guys,
just some interesting observations I have made about the Advanced Combat Wing on the Cheetah R2 #855. The standard Cheetah dogtooth was originally added, but later on the ACW wings were tested. The fixed drooped edge had a slot in the leading edge, very much the same as on the original Mirage III wing, but longer. This slot was later filled and a wing fence was installed. This second version was also tested on Cheetah D #844.

A very different ACW was tested later on #855, which had a cranked leading edge and appears to have less droop than the previous ACW. There was no wing fence, but a wide slot. The leading edge now extended all the way to the elevons and increased the overall wingspan by about 400mm. This was also tested on Cheetah D #844.

The illustrations are not to scale or 100% accurate, but just an simple/easy comparison of the ACW development overlayed in red for comparison to the original Mirage III wing.

Dogtooth to ACW 1-2-3.PNG
 
A program in the 1990's was started to convert turboprop Dc-3/C-47's into a maritime patrol aircraft.
This was to be a more comprehensive modernisation than the Turbo - Dak that eventually was used in this role.

Amongst other changes, the radar was housed in a ventral radome, and was based on the Elta radar that equipped the Cheetah C, but with upgrades, including different processors.

2 airframes were part of the development phase.

The radome design however had negative effects on flight controls in certain regimes, so work was stopped on further refinement and development, due to the diminished defence budget.
 

Attachments

  • 6834-Ex-SAAF-TP.jpg
    6834-Ex-SAAF-TP.jpg
    215.7 KB · Views: 103
  • 6882.jpg
    6882.jpg
    100.5 KB · Views: 103
Last edited:
Another view of one of the windtunnels at the CSIR.
The models on the left include the Atlas Carver and Impala Extended Range Wing in the background.
This photo shows another (white) aircraft in the foreground, mainly the front fuselage.
I thought perhaps a Cheetah C, but it doesn't look like it, unless the perspective/angle is wrong.

Any ideas what it is?
 

Attachments

  • Defence_EAF_Banner_01_1140x200.jpg
    Defence_EAF_Banner_01_1140x200.jpg
    210.1 KB · Views: 80
This photo shows another (white) aircraft in the foreground, mainly the front fuselage.
I thought perhaps a Cheetah C, but it doesn't look like it, unless the perspective/angle is wrong.

Any ideas what it is?
It looks a lot like a BAe Hawk Mk.120.
Defence_EAF_Banner_01_1140x200.jpg SAAF Hawk Mk.120 (269) over Pretoria - Waterkloof (23 September 2012).jpg
 
Last edited:
Interesting variation of the Cheetah. This is from Kobus de Villiers on another website, We Wore Browns. de Villiers is a goldmine of info on the SAAF.

"In the 80's we also worked on a special version of the Cheetah to spy on the enemy. It was designed around 2 cameras that could film at an acute angle, so it could fly far from the intended target at more than twice the speed of sound and bring back very high resolution photos. Only one was built. I was the project engineer. The photo is where we were doing a final check of the flight test equipment (orange boxes) before one of the first test flight."

340504151_258421473281808_4251959554252723383_n.jpg
 
This ? :)
Maybe a Mirage F1, I know that there were wind tunnel models in South Africa.
View attachment 697621
That's the one.
I wasn't sure whether it was perhaps a Mirage F1 or a Cheetah..but the nose/radome seems different to those.
Certainly different to either F1CZ or AZ.
More like a Cheetah C, but again, it doesn't look as long, nor as drooped.
It also doesn't have the ventral step forward of the cockpit.
 
That's the one.
I wasn't sure whether it was perhaps a Mirage F1 or a Cheetah..but the nose/radome seems different to those.
Certainly different to either F1CZ or AZ.
More like a Cheetah C, but again, it doesn't look as long, nor as drooped.
It also doesn't have the ventral step forward of the cockpit.
It is an F1CZ forward fuselage section and was used for air intake investigation/development work. The angle makes it look a bit odd. This was all done post F1 retirement from the SAAF and was purely investigative of nature. There was just a large amount of F1 data and knowledge in CSIR so this work utilised that solid foundation.
 

Attachments

  • F1 forward section 2.jpg
    F1 forward section 2.jpg
    193.4 KB · Views: 55
  • F1 forward section.jpg
    F1 forward section.jpg
    182.6 KB · Views: 65
The Hawk Mk.120 is produced under license in South Africa.
South Africa never produced the Hawk under licence. Denel did assemble the BAE produced aircraft for the SAAF locally in a specially built facility but no more than that. The assembly facility was also not used for more than that.
 
That's the one.
I wasn't sure whether it was perhaps a Mirage F1 or a Cheetah..but the nose/radome seems different to those.
Certainly different to either F1CZ or AZ.
More like a Cheetah C, but again, it doesn't look as long, nor as drooped.
It also doesn't have the ventral step forward of the cockpit.
It is an F1CZ forward fuselage section and was used for air intake investigation/development work. The angle makes it look a bit odd. This was all done post F1 retirement from the SAAF and was purely investigative of nature. There was just a large amount of F1 data and knowledge in CSIR so this work utilised that solid foundation.
Nice pics.
I can see now why it was confusing.
The front tip of the radome on the model is black, and the angle of the photo I posted has this against a black background, giving the impression of a shorter, more bulbous radome.
Your second pic achieves almost the same effect, but is clearer.
 

Attachments

  • mwari_dam.jpg
    mwari_dam.jpg
    574.4 KB · Views: 48
  • param1.jpg
    param1.jpg
    522 KB · Views: 40
  • param2.jpg
    param2.jpg
    308.2 KB · Views: 34
  • param3.jpg
    param3.jpg
    544.2 KB · Views: 43

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom